May 18, 2012

From the New York Times, an op-ed by Jacqueline Stevens, a professor of political science at Northwestern who is the author of States Without Nations: Citizenship for Mortals. Professor Stevens argues that we should "open the borders" and "abolish inheritance" because "the entire body of laws around families and inheritance, embody societies’ collective flight from death." Okay ... My first thought, by the way, was that this op-ed was an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon the NYT by that commenter on my site who is always going on and on about how everybody he disagrees with is a death-loving Nihilist. But, a little research suggests this essay is not a parody, although my diligent Googling has also revealed that there may be more than one Jacqueline Stevens on the Internet at present. Either that, or there's only one Jacqueline Stevens and she is definitely one of the most well-rounded of contemporary intellectuals.

The real problem with citizenship laws is not their manipulation by lawmakers or entrepreneurs, much less by mythical “anchor babies.” The problem is more fundamental: the age-old, irrational linkage between citizenship and birthplace.

From ancient Athens to South Sudan, birth to certain parents, or in a certain territory, has been the primary criterion for citizenship. The word “nationality” comes from the Latin nasci, or birth. America is no exception, notwithstanding the enlargement of citizenship to encompass non-Europeans and women.

Archaic membership rules have made life miserable not only for Mexican migrants in the United States, but also for people who cannot persuade their governments to accept their claims of citizenship ...

... The problem is not bad science, poorly trained officials or even ethnic hatred. The problem is the dubious reliance on birth for assigning citizenship.

Why does the practice endure? ...

Citizens are created by politicians, the citizen-makers. And they are created because the nation, and hence birthright citizenship, exists to alleviate anxieties about death.

Belonging to the nation or any other community by birth, including one’s family, sustains fantasies of immortality, as these groups persist after one’s own life has ended. Birthright citizenship, and indeed, the entire body of laws around families and inheritance, embody societies’ collective flight from death.

Libertarians and economists have long questioned the usefulness of national boundaries. In 1984, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page proposed adding a constitutional amendment: “There shall be open borders.”

For some on the left, the abolition of birthright citizenship evokes the nightmarish prospect of a labor glut in wealthy countries, the global lowering of wages, and capitalism run amok. But greed and corruption have challenged good governance in all ages, not just in the modern capitalist era. Moreover, too many on the left overlook how inheritance laws perpetuate inequality, as well as the disparity in wealth among countries because of restrictions on migration.

Karl Marx predicted that the demise of feudalism would mean that wealth would be created anew in each generation. Instead, intergenerational transmission of money and property remains the main culprit for inequality in wealth. Abolishing inheritance would help end inequality within countries; abolishing birthright citizenship would help end inequality among countries, by letting people move for greater opportunity.

Impossible? Utopian? That was the response to those who proposed the elimination of slavery, a persistent feature for most of the world’s history and, like nativism, defended by some because its abolition would benefit Northern capitalists and increase factory exploitation.

Instead of using birth for assigning citizenship, why not keep the boundaries of current countries, open the borders, and use residence to define citizenship, as the 50 states do? ... People should be free to move across borders; they should be citizens of the states where they happen to reside—period.

Back in 2005, I pointed out that about five billion people live in countries with lower per capita GDP's than Mexico's. Since almost a quarter of all Mexicans in the world now live in the United States, the implication from that example is that Open Borders would bring hundreds of millions of poor foreigners to the U.S., as was confirmed by a subsequent Gallup Poll in over 100 countries.

But, who cares about numbers? Anyway, crunching numbers to refute Open Borders enthusiasts is like breaking a butterfly upon the wheel.

"In early modern Europe, vagabonds without passes were hanged, imprisoned, branded and shipped off to the colonies, including America. Requiring a birth certificate to document citizenship is no less irrational. We need governments, but we don’t need nations. People should be free to move across borders; they should be citizens of the states where they happen to reside — period.

Swell idea, Jackie! How about Israel leads the way and shows the rest of us how it is done!

My first thought, by the way, was that this op-ed was an elaborate hoax perpetrated upon the NYT by that commenter on my site who is always going on and on about how everybody he disagrees with is a Nihilist.

Funny entry on her blog:The New Jewish Eugenics, Just as DumbThe pseudo-scientists have done it again: successfully pitched an inane argument dressed up as "new research" to a middle-brow audience of journalists and editors always happy to unveil a "controversial" fake discovery legitimating racial and ethnic genetic inequality. One of the co-authors has made equally absurd claims before, arguing, the LA Times writes, that "some unidentified pathogen prompts a hormonal imbalance that makes babies more likely to become gay."

Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran wrote a book that ignores a ground rule of statistics, not to confuse correlation with causation, especially when the correlation is likely to be entirely spurious.(...)

I was actually rather pleased by the op-ed! Anything that reminds people that the Wall Street Journal endorsed a "There Shall Be Open Borders" amendment to the Constitution strikes me as more good than bad. It makes it just that much harder for the open-borders lobby to deny that there is an open-borders lobby.

Anti-racism today, as used by respectable conservatives and liberals, means that EVERY White country on earth and ONLY White countries have to bring in large numbers of non-Whites from the third world and integrate with them.

The universal statement of both respectable conservatives and liberals is that this will solve “the RACE” problem.

This RACE problem does not exist in Asia, does not exist in Japan, does not exist in Taiwan, does not exist in Africa.

Nobody expects Black countries to bring in huge numbers of non-Blacks and integrate with them in order to solve some RACE problem.

So it doesn’t really take a nuclear scientist to figure out that solving the RACE problem means solving the WHITE problem.

To repeat, if a group of countries were randomly selected as the ones on earth which had to bring in people of another race, and those countries were Jamaica, all of Africa, in fact, every Black country on the face of the earth, if everybody were to say, “We’re not going to bother anybody else, but YOU have to solve the RACE problem by bringing in lots and lots of non-Blacks and integrating with them,” I don’t think it would take very long for people to figure that whoever was doing this really hated Blacks.

So today when a respectable conservative, Bill O’Reilly, or Shawn Hannity, or whoever else is allowed to talk on national television, he always agrees with the liberals that the RACE problem must be solved and that these countries with a RACE problem must bring in lots and lots of third worlders and integrate with them.

“Wages in rich countries are determined more by immigration control than anything else, including any minimum wage legislation. How is the immigration maximum determined? Not by the ‘free’ labour market, which, if left alone, will end up replacing 80-90 per cent of native workers with cheaper, and often more productive, immigrants. Immigration is largely settled by politics. So, if you have any residual doubt about the massive role that the government plays in the economy’s free market, then pause to reflect that all our wages are, at root, politically determined…”http://books.google.com/books?id=qUqoS7MTwPwC&pg=PA5&dq#v

For example, Steve Sailer always puts a superfluous comma after the word 'but' when he opens a sentence with it. This is strictly speaking speaking incorrect. But, it allows us to recognize Sailer's comments anywhere!

Do you suppose this has something to do with the PUTIN FACTOR? Sailer mentioned that NY Times was for border enforcement up until the late 90s or even early 2000s but then reversed positions. What could have been the reason? With stuff like this, there is no single reason, but a big part of it surely had to do with Jewish fears. So, why did Jewish fears suddenly rise in the late 90s?

During the 90s, Jews took control of Russia. Almost all the oligarchs were Jewish and they were making deals with globalist Jews in EU and US to forge NWO. Jews controlled the Russian government, media, banks, entertainment, natural resources, academia, and etc. And non-Russian Jews were working hand in hand to lend support to Russian Jews. With the fall of communism, Jews all over the world believed RUSSIA IS IN OUR HANDS. And Yeltsin, as a stereotypical drunken boorish Russian, seemed like putty in Jewish hands. He was to Jews what Indians were to white man. Just give him fire water, and he'd do as Jews 'advised' him. He was their dubya. So, in the 90s, Jews were feeling super and masterful. Clintonomics seemed to be working(making super-rich Jews super-duper-rich), economy was booming, Russia was in Jewish hands, and maybe even Palestinains would cut a deal with Israel. But everything unraveled in the late 90s and early 2000s. Israel-Palestine deal fell apart. Economy imploded. And Putin rode the tide of Russian nationalism to gain power and oust Jews from power. What did international Jews learn from the rise of Putin? No matter how powerful the Jewish elite may be, if the majority goy nation comes together as one people and if a leader arises who represents the will of his people, even the richest and most powerful Jews can get it in the neck.

Thus, after what happened in Russia--Putin taking power back from Jews in the name of Russian pride and power--, maybe Jews figured they must make work extra hard to ensure that US and EU will no longer has a majority goy population that could come together as an overwhelming force to take on the Jews.

So she seems to argue that laws should prevent people from seeking meaning in immortality through children or in immortality through the continued existence of their people. Death is good, immortality is bad, those seeking immortality should be punished by the law.

Hey, where are you running? Officer, there is a guy running for the fence! Quick, quick, give him a good one!

I'm sure that as a woman she's mostly concerned about saying the right thing. Everyone in her social circle is for open borders, so that's obviously the right thing to say. But what about the idiots who say the wrong thing, what's their excuse? Ah, they say that they want to perpetuate a bit of themselves through the continued existence of their ethnicities. They don't want to perish entirely, they'd like leave a bit of themselves behind on this Earth. So that's stupid then! And evil.

Whiskey is as always wrong - women aren't central to leftism, they aren't even central to feminism. They're born followers. Leftism was invented by men. But most men would have thought harder about building an argument for leftism than Ms. Stevens did. The fact that open borders are popular in their social circle wouldn't have by itself proven to them that only idiots could possibly defend any idea that conflicts with open borders. So the average leftist man would have tried to build a more complicated argument for it. He would have tried to involve economic efficiency or he'd have denied that members of the same ethnicity are closer to each other than to people of other ethnicities.

"If the unpopular people like X, then obviously X is wrong and bad" - that reasoning wouldn't have sufficed.

"The return to the past is necessary because of our need for immortality through the memory of posterity which the seeming finality of death threatens. In our descendants' memory lies our hope. In this sense, history is the precondition of destiny, the guarantee of immortality, the lesson for posterity. Since we must live through our posterity, the offspring of our families, that history and its lesson must belong to us and tell our collective tale."

Funny that the people who did most to call foul on slavery and end it all over the world got blamed most for slavery. Yes, I mean the Anglos and Anglo-Americans. It's funny when you think about... all the world practiced slavery... but one people finally did something to end it... but that people got blamed most for it. Shouldn't that people have gotten the most credit for ending it? Yet, in a weird way, it makes sense. Anglos and Anglo-Americans, having been the first people to see slavery as a great evil, could only come to be burdened with that realization. It's like this. Suppose a bunch of people are naked and feel no shame. But then, one person says, "I'M NAKED!!! HOW SHAMEFUL!! WE MUST ALL WEAR CLOTHES!!" And then he goes about making clothes for eveyone. But HE is the one who will be tagged with the SHAME OF NAKEDNESS since he notice it first and made a big fuss about it. The danger of being morally righteous.

"But most men would have thought harder about building an argument for leftism than Ms. Stevens did."

Granted, this may well rank high in the lists of the most hilariously awful arguments, but notice that it didn't excite a lot of derisive commentary because this is where much of the intellectual world is headed: bleeding heart liberaltarianism.

i'm begiging to think Alex Jones is kinda onto something. Why when so many people are unemployed in the NYT pushing open borders? Americans don't want it. so why? I don't understand our elite. What they want, etc.

The New World Order wants us stripped of all identity: without nationality, religion, ancestry, heritage, tradition, race, etc.

Without identity there is no will to fight, or resist....."

This reminded me of something. From the Wikipedia article on Mbuti, a Pygmy tribe:

"Bambuti societies have no ruling group or lineage, no overlying political organization, and little social structure. The Bambuti are an egalitarian society in which the band is the highest form of social organization.[20] Leadership may be displayed for example on hunting treks.[21] Men and women basically have equal power."

On many occasions I've seen Central African Pygmies described as slaves of the Bantu. They are the lowest people not just in stature and in R. Lynn's rankings, but socially as well. And just think: two pieces of leftist utopia in one paragraph - political atomization and gender equality.

"Back in 2005, I pointed out that about five billion people live in countries with lower per capita GDP's than Mexico's. Since almost a quarter of all Mexicans in the world now live in the United States, the implication from that example is that Open Borders would bring hundreds of millions of poor foreigners to the U.S., as was confirmed by a subsequent Gallup Poll in over 100 countries."

- There are simpler logic puzzles for the Dr. Stevenses of the world- Just take it to its 'logical' conclusion using their logic.

Why stop at open nations? Why not allow free access to your home? In essence your windows and doors are an artificial barrier that prevents 'letting each man take according to his needs'.

If personal wealth is a gross inequity, then why do you accept a 6-figure salary as a professor? Why not donate 40% of it to the janitor who works for your academic office building and equalize yours and his standard of living?

What a great pleasure to find here some Anglophone recognition at least in passing of Miguel de Unamuno, my favorite Spanish author by far. I would urge anyone who loves great literature to read his Niebla, among other things.

As for the horridly incoherent writings of Ms. Stevens...while it's very kind of her to remind us of the Latin root of the word "nation," as though that's not obvious to anyone with a brain, her next sentence is stupid enough to call into question anything further in her essay: "America is no exception, notwithstanding the enlargement of citizenship to encompass non-Europeans and women."

Following Niles, if we are not to bequeath our goods to our children, then to who? If to the government, an artificially-created device which can remake itself at whim, then every generation could redecide where it goes. Does Jackie have any logical ground for preventing the next generation from declaring that no women are eligible for any of it? I'm pretty sure that's not where she wanted to go, but it flows rather naturally (not that she would perceive that).

Sure, one can remove birth and genetics as arbitrary. To be replaced by what, exactly, that is not equally arbitrary? She has dimly absorbed the idea that we are not going to live forever and our eventual effect a century from now may not be easily discernible. She has figured out that there is some arbitrariness to other people's values. It hasn't dawned on her that her own are equally vulnerable.

Is this woman a disciple of the Marquis de Sade? From the paragraphs Steve quotes I was immediately set to thinking of the Revolution francaise-- then Niles' thinking along the lines of "property is theft" reminded me of Sade's (and Foucault)'s notion that sexual resistance itself is "theft": the body, everyone's body, should be communal property, free for the use of whomever.

Open borders dogma is one thing (bad enough), but this screed truly does deserve the epithet "lunatic." And "nihilist". Are humans to be allowed no connection to futurity at all? No nations, no peoples, no families-- rape as true equality must surely be a reasonable capstone to this madness.

For Plato's Diotima, the urge to continue in our progeny is the beginning of the road to God, or the Good. For this academic, it's to be abolished to reduce us to-- no, even animals take some concern for the progeny.

Ive actually read this book. On page 56 she proposes a poll tax and literacy requirements for "active citizenship." She's so left wing that she veers into the policies of the segregationist south. The best proposal though was to put drug addicts in charge of drug treatment centers - what could go wrong?

You know, when you hear the ravings of leftists and observe their inversion of reality, in which, tolerance means intolerance, freedom means slavery, and diversity means conformity, it really does look and sound like a Mental Illness.However, that assumes that these people are unaware of this upside down inversive reasoning, and are simply deluded or insane. But, what if these people are insincere? What if they realize that they are inverting reality and misrepresenting it? Are they not then EVIL?Leftists must either be Mentally Ill or Evil! Do not assume they are being honest with you or themselves, and consider that they just might be Evil!

Professor Stevens argues that we should "open the borders" and "abolish inheritance" because "the entire body of laws around families and inheritance, embody societies’ collective flight from death."

She must read David P. Goldman aka "Spengler". She is basically paraphrasing him here. Goldman frequently writes about how all gentile nations are doomed to collective death soon and how nationalism is a futile attempt to escape this collective death. He seems to suggest it is futile because any serious nationalism will be smashed down by some imperial project or another that is acceptable to Goldman. Only the Jewish nation will survive (and deserves to survive, according to Goldman, because of the covenant i.e. bc/ yahweh said so). It's a nakedly malevolent, hostile, supremacist attitude that's right there for everyone to see, but it seems to go over most readers' heads.

All the gentiles are doomed to death (he literally labels them "zombies", "the walking dead" from time to time in his pieces), Goldman smugly says, but if you want to be "saved", the only salvation is via some sort of non-nationalistic, universalistic, pro-Jewish/Israel Christianity or secular imperial neoconservatism acceptable to Goldman.

Stevens seems to argue similarly that all societies are doomed to death, that borders, laws, families etc. are futile attempts to escape it, and that the only salvation is via some sort of global, unitary leftist world state.

Don't worry, anonymii. Not only Jackie agrees with you on opening Israeli borders, she hates Israel as much as you do.

Jews are a diaspora nation. Most Jews live outside Israel. Opening the borders to Israel does not damage the Jewish nation as much as more territorial, non-diaspora nations. This is why many liberal Jews aren't always that pro-Israel.

As I've long maintained the social 'sciences' are just a complete waste of money, a pile of bullpoopy that stretches from here to infinity and they should all be closed down and the money spent on real science. They are just a platform for a lot of second-raters to talk shit and impersonate 'intellectuals'.

But seriously, after viewing the video footage of Mexicans beheading each other with chainsaws and blunt knives (the red, raw primal aggression that silly little pampered princesses like the female author have been sheletered from for centuries - due to the sacrifice of white men may I add), one cannot be more impressed of the need for nation states, and the need to keep certain people out. If borders and boundaries are just silly, man-made irrelevancies etc etc why doesn't the princess female author go down Mexico way and live amongst the cut-throats she cherishes so much? The answer of course is 'not on your Nelly!' - as the English say.

How the Hell do you abolish 'inheritance'? - surely this woman isn't aware that substantial sums of money can be transferred during lifetimes? - and of course there would be no capital formation whatsoever as no one would want the state to seize their assets.Anyway - the love of one's children (which is all inheritance really is), is the strongest force in nature. Interfere at your peril.

It's pretty obvious that parents are the biggest perpetrators of discrimination once you have factored in the race, sex, ethnicity, etc.Considering the leftist narrative of how SES trumps all other variables, it's surprising that they are coming to this conclusion this late in the game. Or I am missing out on a lot of history.

Throw out fathers, make mothers enlightened career women who dump their kids in child-care, and it's easy to move one step to 'everybody starts equal from birth' than government policies like AA.

Imagine John Lennon's Imagine, only with newer buzzwords like white privilege, patriarchy, one-percenter etc. Why hasn't some leftie made something like this their 'national' anthem already?

"Throw out fathers, make mothers enlightened career women who dump their kids in child-care, and it's easy to move one step to 'everybody starts equal from birth' than government policies like AA."

Fathers who aren't worthless to begin with are kind of hard to throw out. In most cases, it would take a professional hitman. Mothers who are worth the title take it upon themselves to instill values into their own kids, even if they have careers and utilize some form of child-care.

Jews are a diaspora nation. Most Jews live outside Israel. Opening the borders to Israel does not damage the Jewish nation as much as more territorial, non-diaspora nations. This is why many liberal Jews aren't always that pro-Israel.

Do you really see that much support for the Palestinians coming out of Hollywood? For the BDS movement?

5/18/12 6:13 PM:Nihilists may exist, but there are far fewer of them than you think. Your use of the word "nihilist" is so broad and slap-dash as to be meaningless.

*****

EYE OF HORUS:However, that assumes that these people are unaware of this upside down inversive reasoning, and are simply deluded or insane. But, what if these people are insincere? What if they realize that they are inverting reality and misrepresenting it? Are they not then EVIL? Leftists must either be Mentally Ill or Evil! Do not assume they are being honest with you or themselves, and consider that they just might be Evil!

*****

Nihilism is the ultimate instantiation of evil - the absolute intellectual and spiritual death to which all evil aspires.

And if the nihilism of our opponents [they ARE your opponents, aren't they?] isn't abundantly obvious to you, then you must have glossed over Naval Gazing 101 back in grade school.

At the heart of PaleoConservativism is supposed to be the acknowledgement of the existence of things which deserve to be conserved [and God forbid, actually nurtured and even propagated] accompanied by a willingness to sacrifice in order to save these things from that which desires otherwise.

At the heart of Leftism is the desire to destroy.

To destroy everything.

To leave nothing in its wake.

And that's what nihilism amounts to.

The absolute exinction of life, and the triumph of death.

"EYE OF HORUS" is starting to get it - starting to wake up to the horror which is staring us in the face, and starting to realize what we are up against.

But I'm hearing a lot of intransigence out of "6:13 PM" - I fear that he may be lost to us.

http://www.bdsmovement.net/In 2005, Palestinian civil society issued a call for a campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. A truly global movement against Israeli Apartheid is rapidly emerging in response to this call.

"She wants the U.S. to turn into what Teddy Roosevelt feared it would become during the Great Wave - a "polyglot boardinghouse.""

You have to have the same fears of a man who lived before the space program, DNA discovery, the internet, mass global travel, civil rights, etc. etc. etc.?

I guess the US really needs to refer to Plato's political thoughts to get in order. A man who believed the earth was flat and wasn't aware of the existence of Asia or Africa, even massive parts of Europe.

Professor Stevens argues that we should "open the borders" and "abolish inheritance" because "the entire body of laws around families and inheritance, embody societies’ collective flight from death."destroying the family and nation is the goal of any imperial project, any totalitarian state. AS Peter Hitchens points out, they have to smash or radically alter religion as well.

Ive actually read this book. On page 56 she proposes a poll tax and literacy requirements for "active citizenship." She's so left wing that she veers into the policies of the segregationist south.

If we replace "active citizenship" with "party membership," she sounds a lot like a Soviet-style communist. The State is everything. Traditional attachments -- to family, religion, culture, etc. -- are "bourgeois" vices to be eradicated. The few individual rights are merely a "generous gift" from the State to the people.

Why don't we do away with names and surnames? I didn't get to pick my slave name.

I love the title of Stevens' work, linked to, "Reproducing the State." Nothing like Post-Modern wordage.

And we can set up all government payment methods at distribution centers. I could go into one of the distribution centers multiple times, each time saying, with all honesty because we are now free of artificial constraints,"hello my name is: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Mr. Haliburton, Farmer Jones, or Jacqueline Stevens, and I'm here to pick up my check. What? How do you know I am not the Jacqueline Stevens the check is made out to? Stop en-stating me! Don't define me, I define myself. Gimme my money!"

By temporarily using her name and cashing in Professor Stevens' paycheck I would, to quote Derrida, engage in a sort of sort of "participation without belonging—a taking part in without being a part of, without having membership in a set." Isn't that what Open Borders is really all about?

Plato was also, you must understand, quite aware of the existence of Egypt which, for all I can tell, is (in its ancient phase) the only corner of Africa in which today's SWPL could've felt reasonably comfortable.

Plato was also, you must understand, quite aware of the existence of Egypt."

Good on him. He knew about Egypt!Don't need to insults the ancients, because truly they were all ignoramuses compared to anyone with access to Wikipedia. Plus Plato is a good racket for liberal arts $$$. And the US economy is hurtin'.

Why do I bother with this lost contentious crowd of ISteve commentators, anyways? Boredom.

English is arguably many foreign languages contained within one super language called "English". Don't sweat the small. Bye, for now.

Why don't we do away with names and surnames? I didn't get to pick my slave name.

You joke, but Chang and Halliday have a picture of an experiment by Mao wherein the peasants were ordered to do away with their names and to wear only numbers on their clothing as a means of identification.

I kid you not - buy their book and give them a little revenue in the process - if anyone deserves it, they do.

Women don't do group loyalty. Maybe because most societies (and all European societies) are traditionally patrilocal. Group solidarity is a Patriarchal creation, as feminist author Ursula Le Guin once observed quite correctly:

>>>>>The power of male group solidarity must come from the control and channeling of male rivalry, the repression and concentration of the hormone-driven will to dominate that so often dominates men themselves. It is a remarkable reversal. The destructive, anarchic energy of individual rivalry and competitive ambition is diverted into loyalty to group and leader and directed to more or less constructive social enterprise.

Such groups are closed, positing “the other” as outsider. They exclude, first, women; then, men of a different age, or kind, or caste, or nation, or level of achievement, etc. — exclusions that reinforce the solidarity and power of the excluders. Perceiving any threat, the “band of brothers” joins together to present an impermeable front.

Male solidarity appears to me to have been the prime shaper of most of the great ancient institutions of society — Government, Army, Priesthood, University, and the new one that may be devouring all the others, Corporation. The existence and dominance of these hierarchic, organized, coherent, durable institutions goes back so far and has been so nearly universal that it’s mostly just called “how things are,” “the world,” “the division of labor,” “history,” “God’s will,” etc.>>>>>Of course the conclusion one must draw from this, and Le Guin will never admit, is that women could never have made a civilization. And they have no idea how to sustain one, either.

What about erecting borders in order to protect yourself against the effects of immigration of undesirables for WHILE YOU'RE STILL ALIVE?

much less by mythical “anchor babies.”

Well, since our brave genius -- courageously challenging established NYT opinion, lol -- is in such a mythbusting mood, how about taking on one of the biggest myths (aka despicable lies) going, that of racial equality?

Open the borders of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Then we'll follow. Promise.

I think it's time to throw in the towel. Stop resisting. Let's all become Israel Firsters.

Endless immigration is a splendid idea! Of course it is, but I don't think it's right for America to hog so much of it. How about giving America's greatest ally in the world in the fight against umm... well, whatever.. how about giving Israel a shot? More immigration? Sure, but Israel first.

- surely this woman isn't aware that substantial sums of money can be transferred during lifetimes? - and of course there would be no capital formation whatsoever as no one would want the state to seize their assets.

I don't imagine that she has thought about the possible consequences of such a plan. Even leftist historian Sheila Fitzpatrick admits that revolutionaries have no understanding of what their political actions will do. They're unable to see the negatives, blinded by their assurance that they are in the right.

Anyway - the love of one's children (which is all inheritance really is), is the strongest force in nature. Interfere at your peril.

Yes, it is instinct to love one's own children. That these people are seemingly blind to this is instructive with regards to how they experience the world. They don't experience life - they live in a world of concepts and ideologies.

Instead of using birth for assigning citizenship, why not keep the boundaries of current countries, open the borders, and use residence to define citizenship, as the 50 states do? ... People should be free to move across borders; they should be citizens of the states where they happen to reside—period.

This is profoundly stupid. Ecologist Garrett Hardin explained this more than 40 years ago, with his "tragedy of the commons". An open-borders policy turns a country into a commons.

Moreover, we know that the imposition of an open-borders policy on bacteria -- through the use of penicillin -- causes death. Why would an open-borders policy for a human population not produce exactly the same result?

Open borders means death for the American nation, and -- amazingly -- she kind of admits it!

Open the borders of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Then we'll follow. Promise.

Ms. Stevens won't even open the borders to her own personal living space (house/apartment/whatever), so you know her opinion regarding national living space is based on a double standard whereby what's hers is hers and what's ours is hers.

"Moreover, we know that the imposition of an open-borders policy on bacteria -- through the use of penicillin -- causes death. Why would an open-borders policy for a human population not produce exactly the same result?"

"Archaic membership rules have made life miserable not only for Mexican migrants in the United States."

So miserable, in fact, that they keep coming here!

On page 56 she proposes a poll tax and literacy requirements for"active citizenship."

That's a bad thing? Consider: the left holds significant majorities of the left and right halves of the bell curve: high school dropouts and folks with graduate degrees lean heavily Democratic. The right owns the majority of the middle, with high school graduates, college graduates, and those with some college voting Republican. Lop off the far left end of the bell curve and you're mostly eliminating Democrats. There's a reason Dems are fighting tooth and nail to make it ever easier for idiots and thugs to vote.

I do like the connection this woman makes between citizenship and financial inheritance. For the average middle and lower-middle class American, their citizenship in the USA is the largest inheritance they'll ever receive. The Wall Street Urinal wants to abolish that form of inheritance while letting Haim Saban's and David Kock's children inherit every last penny.

Hacienda, you make me doubt the intelligence of Azns. Truth trolls better than you, and he is a terrible troll, a quota troll. S Korea is embarking on a multicult future of its own. How u feel bout dat, yo?

do you eat fude? Doncha know that that's wut ppl did before the spaceprogram and junk?

"Of course the conclusion one must draw from this, and Le Guin will never admit, is that women could never have made a civilization. And they have no idea how to sustain one, either."

Really? That conclusion might work on our side. Leslie Fielder said all major male American authors blamed women for race prejudice, the spread of western civilization, taking white men away from living the American indian life, and slavery. I think your conclusion frees the ladies from a lot of projection. Better to be overlooked completely than looked over too much.

But still, women are half the human race. They provided half (or more) of the genes, and probably quite a bit of impetus. Writing them totally out of development of civilization is laughable. Still, I guess it depends on what you care about.

LeGuin was a fantasist. She cared more about extraterrestrials than people here. I, too, sometimes feel a lack of group loyalty to earthlings. To paraphrase Woody Allen, "how can I believe in my group when there is war, famine, and day time tv."

I am really interested in understanding what the commenter Charlotte meant. Can she restate her comment more clearly? Especially this part:

"Really? That conclusion might work on our side. Leslie Fielder said all major male American authors blamed women for race prejudice, the spread of western civilization, taking white men away from living the American indian life, and slavery. I think your conclusion frees the ladies from a lot of projection. Better to be overlooked completely than looked over too much."

"You can make it illegal to give assets away. If I wanted to give my children 1 billion dollars before I died I would have to pay a gift tax on it now. You could make it a 100% tax if you wanted to."

So this would make people extremely oriented towards the family clan. If a father can't count on leaving his house to the kids, he'll make it a priority to build a bigger house where the kids could live with him until he dies, and share in his ownership of the house as early as possible. If the father can't save the money he earns for his family by using a government sanctioned bank, he will keep his savings inside the home, which would require a strong, well built house and enough family members to defend it from robbers. Trust between relatives would become of supreme importance. If the government won't support the parents', children's and siblings' rights, people will look towards their own families for justice, and we'll revert to the Afghanistan model.

"S Korea is embarking on a multicult future of its own. How u feel bout dat, yo?"

No problem. As long as Korea keeps it's Korean character. At least the one I know. Love of children, spontaneous play, even roughhouse or raw. And there are excesses of Korea that multi-culti could actually do away with, which would be fine with me, too. Over academicism, for one.

But Korea is NOT America or even Italy. It's idiotic to make immigrant comparisons b/w Korea and pointy fingered Western countries.

"The Communist Manifesto made the attack on family loyalty perfectly clear. The Manifesto spoke of, "The bourgeois claptrap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child."

I am really interested in understanding what the commenter Charlotte meant. Can she restate her comment more clearly? Especially this part:

"Really? That conclusion might work on our side. Leslie Fielder said all major male American authors blamed women for race prejudice, the spread of western civilization, taking white men away from living the American indian life, and slavery. I think your conclusion frees the ladies from a lot of projection. Better to be overlooked completely than looked over too much."

oh, ok. Crystal clarity eludes me at the moment, the hour is late....but Two very common traditional attitudes towards females are, one: they represent nature and do not enter into the rational aspects of developing civilization. This appears to be the opinion of the commenter to whom I was responding. If she represents nature and the irrational, of course she doesn't have "group loyalty" because she didn't organize the groups that demand it. The other attitude is that women are the ones who are responsible for "civilization" and the metaphorical necktie strangling individualistic men into conformity.The latter opinion has been especially rampant in the 20th century..I prefer the former; better a force of nature than to be seens as Nurse Ratchet. That's as clear as I can get about.

As for the ETs (the referenced author, LeGuin wrote sci-fi), well, it was conservative Reagan who opined that they might be the agent of world unity since we'd unite against them if they attacked planet earth. I was just saying that I'm exasperated enough with earth people to want to see if ETs are any better before we assume we must unite against them.This seems wise to me, then I remember all those dreary liberals with their platitudes about accepting everybody into one's circle of social intimates, because we're all the same. Except that only works if EVERYBODY feels the same way and revels in self-loss. Surrenduring your own racial identity while someone else is honing their's to increasing sharpness is like throwing down your gun while the oppoenent keeps his. I think I've just made an argument for group loyalty.

bleach, your comment is quite good and I may put it in a documentary. but is your generalization true of African women? They seem rather ethno-centric? European women this is more true of in part because of europe's greater indivualism.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.